Analysis of Crito

Analysis of Crito :

The question is raised within the dialogue between Socrates and
Crito concerning civil disobedience. Crito has the desire, the means, and
many compelling reasons with which he tries to convince the condemned to
acquiesce in the plan to avoid his imminent death. Though Crito's
temptation is imposing, it is in accord with reason and fidelity that
Socrates chooses to fulfill his obligation to the state, even to death.

Before addressing Crito's claims which exhort Socrates to leave the
state and avoid immanent death, the condemned lays a solid foundation
upon which he asserts his obligation to abide by the laws. The
foundation is composed of public opinion, doing wrong, and fulfillment of
one's obligations. Addressing public opinion, Socrates boldly asserts
that it is more important to follow the advice of the wise and live well
than to abide by the indiscriminate and capricious public opinion and
live poorly. Even when it is the public who may put one to death, their
favor need not be sought, for it is better to live well than to submit to
their opinion and live poorly. Next, wrongful doing is dispatched of.
They both consent to the idea that, under no circumstances, may one do a
wrong, even in retaliation, nor may one do an injury; doing the latter is
the same as wrong doing. The last foundation to be questioned is the
fulfillment of one's obligations. Both of the philosophers affirm that,
provided that the conditions one consents to are legitimate, one is
compelled to fulfill those covenants. These each are founded upon right
reasoning and do provide a justifiable foundation to discredit any design
of dissent.

At line fifty, Socrates executes these foundations to destroy and
make untenable the petition that he may rightfully dissent.

Then consider the logical consequence. If we leave this
place without first persuading the state to let us go, are we or are
we not doing an injury, and doing it in a quarter where it is least
justifiable? Are we or are we not abiding by our just agreements?

To criticize or reproach Socrates' decision to accept his
punishment is unjustifiable in most of the arguments. The only point of
disagreement with Socrates' logic concerns his assertion, "expressed" in
his dialogue with the laws, that the state is to be more respected than
one's parents. I contend that one would never willingly oblige himself
to a totalitarian state in which the laws and the magistrates are to be
regarded more highly than one's own family. One would only contract with
a government whose power insures the public good and whose establishment
seeks them to extend to its citizens utilitarian needs.